The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 4 of 30 FirstFirst 123456789101112131429 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 900
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    That's a noble goal, but such goals should follow the flavor.
    And Extra Sneak Attacky talent doesn't follow flavor? :) Dual Wielder feat's flavour makes sense if its +stat damage, or use one-handed weapons. Both follow flavor imo. It's just currently favoring the rogue over a fighter using the same dual shortswords, because at level 9, the fighter has no valid option to improve his primary fighting style.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Small weapons shouldn't magically deal more damage because a player wants a certain flavor choice. For example Daggers are generally worse for Rogues unless they throw regularly - that's just how the game is. Daggers shouldn't be upgraded to d6s to be comparable to shortswords.
    Agreed, we are talking about off-hand damage though, not increase the weapons damage dice. I use daggers on my city rogue, because they are more easily concealable. I accept the damage drop, because its very minor. Rogues primary dpr doesn't come from damage dice, it comes from sneak attack. A level 20 rogue needs only hit once and get SA, and most of his damage is done, the extra attack from TWF increases that chance. Whether they roll a 1d4 or 1d8 on top of that for weapon damage, makes little difference.
    A fighters comes from his damage dice, number of attacks, style(Archery is accuracy, GWF is higher average per hit), and a bit from CM's. Your TWF stance does add damage, but limits the dex fighter to one weapon.
    For the rogue, dagger, shortsword and rapier are all finesse weapons, it doesn't make a huge difference.
    If a Dex fighter wants to TWF, and make use of the TWF Stance, he has one option - Rapier, or be a sub-par fighter. At level 9, they have no option to enhance their fighting style.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    You could argue the same about applying +ability mod on the offhand which is the RAW. The argument doesn't hold water imo. Specializations come "early" in 5e compared to weapon specialization came at 4th level in 3.X.
    I should have stipulated, the General I'm talking about, is the stuff you get at level 1, the specialization is the Talent you choose later on, which further enhances your style.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    No stances stack besides Defense. This is the exact case for every fighter. Either they choose defense and take the +1 AC or choose two and swap between melee and ranged weapons for example.
    That is my point. The level 9 Dex Fighter chooses Defense, and....nothing. The Greataxe wielder choose GWF stance, and Defense fighting stance. As you said, its the same with all fighters, except a dex fighter who wants to dual wield melee weapons - his skill matches the rogue unless he too takes a liking to rapiers :P


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Gannicus is not wielding light weapons, they are longswords
    I stand corrected I always thought they were shortswords.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    The level 9 Dex Fighter chooses Defense, and....nothing.
    This situation is exactly the same for a Fighter TWFing with daggers. I'm not going to design for a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian wielding daggers with the goal of those daggers doing as much damage as longswords. Nor should I design for a Fighter aimed at using light weapons. Such flavor doesn't fit the flavor of the class and is a poor mechanical choice which is determined by the flavor of smaller weapons. That flavor can't be magically side-stepped to give those light weapons the same damage as longswords.

    You could certainly make some kind of fighting style for light weapons (there are many custom fighter fighting styles out there), but it doesn't fit the flavor of the class imo.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    You don't think a dex TWF fits the Fighter class?
    Edit: I've never suggested increase the damage dice of small weapons. Not sure where that is coming from. I'm saying a Fighter getting off-hand stat damage from a stance makes more sense than giving rogues access to that skill level.

    I guess we differ once again

    I'll revert it for our game, doesn't seem fair he just gained two stances and its useless.

    Thanks again for indulging the discussion
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2018-01-07 at 06:48 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    This situation is exactly the same for a Fighter TWFing with daggers. I'm not going to design for a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian wielding daggers with the goal of those daggers doing as much damage as longswords. Nor should I design for a Fighter aimed at using light weapons. Such flavor doesn't fit the flavor of the class and is a poor mechanical choice which is determined by the flavor of smaller weapons. That flavor can't be magically side-stepped to give those light weapons the same damage as longswords.

    You could certainly make some kind of fighting style for light weapons (there are many custom fighter fighting styles out there), but it doesn't fit the flavor of the class imo.
    So what class does such a fighting style fit? There's rogue, but it comes with a lot of baggage and a very specific way of fighting.

    Other than that, you've clearly put an enormous amount of work and thought into this, and I respect that. Still, I find it somewhat disappointing that magic-using classes have much more material devoted to them, just like in regular D&D, and that non-magical ones still scale in a pretty limited way. They get new class features but their ability pools tend to stay the same, unless I'm missing something. And they only get access to general talents?
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    You don't think a dex TWF fits the Fighter class?
    I have never said that. A rapier is a d8 finesse weapon. A long scimitar using d8 and finesse (with slashing) fits perfectly fine within 5e.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    I'll revert it for our game, doesn't seem fair he just gained two stances and its useless.
    Your game is only using about 10% of my rules. It's not such a good test case to be fair.

    ============================


    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    So what class does such a fighting style fit? There's rogue, but it comes with a lot of baggage and a very specific way of fighting.
    Is the same not true for dual wielding daggers? How about dual wielding shurikens (darts)?

    In both cases you're basically restricted to Monk or Rogue if you want to play mostly optimally. D&D is a rigid game. While I strive to make it less rigid there are certain choices that are plainly suboptimal. My goal is to only buff them when it makes flavor sense.

    Though perhaps there is a fighting style out there that can make light weapons a viable option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Other than that, you've clearly put an enormous amount of work and thought into this, and I respect that.
    Thanks! It's a continuing project. I've receive feedback from a few dedicated people both on my old thread, this thread, and on my issue tracker. It's great to have more pairs of eyes join in and provide feedback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Still, I find it somewhat disappointing that magic-using classes have much more material devoted to them, just like in regular D&D, and that non-magical ones still scale in a pretty limited way. They get new class features but their ability pools tend to stay the same, unless I'm missing something. And they only get access to general talents?
    Different people want different things from roleplaying games. Some people want complex characters so casters exist for them while others want simple characters that are easier to manage so martials exist for them. Generally that's how D&D has always been. 3.X made some strives to adjust this later in its printing with Tome of Battle and 4e changed this drastically, but those two options (simple and complex) must always be present for players.

    I believe I have provided a fair amount of options (and complexity) to the fighter via maneuvers. While martials will never be able to cast spells and have all the versatility that those bring I believe the caster martial divide in 5e is the smaller it has ever been and my rules significantly shrink that divide by having casters recharge on a short rest instead of long. Every class has a role to play and I believe martials are a vital part of every group in 5e.

    Having said that if you have something specific in mind please do share.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Your right. I eat all my words
    The two mechanics are +stat to offhand damage, and dual one-handed weapons. One of them is to be locked to a Fighting style, the other available to all. It makes more sense that a dual dagger wielding rogue gets off-hand damage, than to allow them to dual wield rapiers(which a fighter can, but visually it looks silly to me).

    It's the Light Weapon fighting stance that is missing, you're right. Maybe just +1 to damage when hitting with light weapons. Fills the gap between d6 and d8 weapons. Although it should probably not be related to damage, should have some other benefit for using lighter, faster weapons.

    Any suggestions on how to fix Dueling? It really is horrid. I thought maybe +1 AC, they aren't using a shield or two-handed weapon, so are less weighed down so to speak, and can more easily dodge. I feel like a Defensive Duelist style thing would fit as part of this stance/style.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    It's the Light Weapon fighting stance that is missing, you're right. Maybe just +1 to damage when hitting with light weapons. Fills the gap between d6 and d8 weapons. Although it should probably not be related to damage, should have some other benefit for using lighter, faster weapons.
    Ah, ha! There is the suggestion that light weapons should do as much damage! :D

    +1 damage is mechanically comparable, but I would only use it as a temporary option until I could come up with something more fitting to the flavor of light weapons as +1 damage is lazy design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Any suggestions on how to fix Dueling? It really is horrid. I thought maybe +1 AC, they aren't using a shield or two-handed weapon, so are less weighed down so to speak, and can more easily dodge. I feel like a Defensive Duelist style thing would fit as part of this stance/style.
    By my RAW calculations and Homebrew calculations fighting styles are worth about +10% DPR. Dueling accomplishes that.

    Dueling isn't a bad choice, the lack of a feat or talent to follow it up with is the problem. GWF is only giving 7-8% more DPR, but that's because the DPR of the fighting style is so strong from GWM. Dueling needs a comparable feat.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Ah, ha! There is the suggestion that light weapons should do as much damage! :D
    +1 damage is mechanically comparable, but I would only use it as a temporary option until I could come up with something more fitting to the flavor of light weapons as +1 damage is lazy design.
    I wasn't originally suggesting light weapons increase in damage. I am now after I agreed with your assessment as to where stat/larger weapons belonged :P And yes, very lazy design, I don't like it, but its a stop gap measure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    By my RAW calculations and Homebrew calculations fighting styles are worth about +10% DPR. Dueling accomplishes that.

    Dueling isn't a bad choice, the lack of a feat or talent to follow it up with is the problem. GWF is only giving 7-8% more DPR, but that's because the DPR of the fighting style is so strong from GWM. Dueling needs a comparable feat.
    Ah ok, it just seemed really weak compared to an extra attack each round(TWF), even without the stat damage, but mainly at lower levels, and with crits. I'd imagine TWF is better earlier, Dueling getting better the more attacks you get in higher levels. I'll trust your math So it just needs a feat/talent of some sort. In that case, I'd suggest something defensive in nature. I'm assuming Duelist is similar to a Fencing style, but more versatile for various weapons.

    Been talking with my DM about it, and his comments were:
    One of the common TWF setups, is one-handed/light, eg. Rapier/Dirk, Longsword/Dagger etc. But your TWF general rule is
    "Two-Weapon Fighting: Once on your turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that youíre holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that youíre holding in the other hand. You donít add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that youíre holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative."
    So this setup requires you are in the TWF stance to draw them at the same time.

    Would changing this general rule, to one-handed weapon and light weapon change things to much? And also changing the Interact with Object entry to reflect that change(draw one-handed and light weapon).
    The TWF stance still has value, allowing to use and draw two one-handed weapons. The feat would still be required for off-hand stat and +1 AC.
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2018-01-07 at 09:02 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Ah ok, it just seemed really weak compared to an extra attack each round(TWF), even without the stat damage, but mainly at lower levels, and with crits. I'd imagine TWF is better earlier, Dueling getting better the more attacks you get in higher levels. I'll trust your math So it just needs a feat/talent of some sort. In that case, I'd suggest something defensive in nature. I'm assuming Duelist is similar to a Fencing style, but more versatile for various weapons.
    TWF fighting style either offers ability score (RAW) or bigger weapons which are effectively +1 average damage. I'm comparing the fighting styles in isolation, not the whole package. Based on that comparison the fighting styles are balanced fine.

    The issue, when comparing the whole package, is the lack of a feat/talent for duelists. It needs more damage and more defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    One of the common TWF setups, is one-handed/light, eg. Rapier/Dirk, Longsword/Dagger etc. But your TWF general rule is
    "Two-Weapon Fighting: Once on your turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that youíre holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that youíre holding in the other hand. You donít add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that youíre holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative."
    So this setup requires you are in the TWF stance to draw them at the same time.

    Would changing this general rule, to one-handed weapon and light weapon change things to much? And also changing the Interact with Object entry to reflect that change(draw one-handed and light weapon).
    There is no way to make this work, mechanically. One handed weapons and one light weapon could be a longsword + a shortsword which effectively just gives more damage.

    Giving a one handed weapon and a light weapon by default seems innocuous, but the offhand weapon is used 1/turn while the main hand is used twice per turn starting at 5th level and is likely used for opportunity attacks. It would not be comparable to two light weapons.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    There is no way to make this work, mechanically. One handed weapons and one light weapon could be a longsword + a shortsword which effectively just gives more damage.
    * Draw/Sheathe two light weapons, or a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon.
    To wordy or specific? Or just unnecessary in your opinion?

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    * Draw/Sheathe two light weapons, or a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon.
    To wordy or specific? Or just unnecessary in your opinion?
    Oh, you're talking about drawing weapons. Drawing wouldn't have any value unless you could attack with both, which you can't.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Oh, you're talking about drawing weapons. Drawing wouldn't have any value unless you could attack with both, which you can't.
    And too much to add it also to the TWF general rule?

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    And too much to add it also to the TWF general rule?
    See above:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    There is no way to make this work, mechanically. One handed weapons and one light weapon could be a longsword + a shortsword which effectively just gives more damage.

    Giving a one handed weapon and a light weapon by default seems innocuous, but the offhand weapon is used 1/turn while the main hand is used twice per turn starting at 5th level and is likely used for opportunity attacks. It would not be comparable to two light weapons.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    What about something like this(obviously the crit range not worked out properly, just trying a concept):

    Dagger Specialist [Talent]
    * You can draw a dagger(or could be broader like light, finesse, thrown weapon) a number of times per round equal to your Dexterity modifier, without it counting toward your Interact with Object free action each turn, as long as you have a free hand to draw it.
    * When you roll a natural 17-20 on an attack roll with a dagger and hit, you do an extra dice of weapon damage with that dagger.
    * When using Two-Weapon Fighting, and attacking with a dagger in your off-hand, you can add your ability modifier to the weapon damage roll.

    A lvl 20 fighter for example, could draw and throw as many daggers as he has attacks assuming Dex is high enough, and benefits from the second point on each.
    In melee, he'd basically have the Dual Wielder feat plus one chance to trigger the second point. But no +1 AC that the DW talent gives.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    You can draw a dagger(or could be broader like light, finesse, thrown weapon) a number of times per round equal to your Dexterity modifier, without it counting toward your Interact with Object free action each turn, as long as you have a free hand to draw it.
    This is a feat tax for something that should work this way by RAW. If my rules don't explicitly allow it somewhere I allow characters to draw as many weapons as attacks for thrown weapons. It shouldn't require a feat to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    When using Two-Weapon Fighting, and attacking with a dagger in your off-hand, you can add your ability modifier to the weapon damage roll.
    For 2 light weapons this is already covered via Dual Wielder. Otherwise this line wouldn't work as TWF does not allow an offhand light weapon with a main hand one handed weapon. I wouldn't as I've written above.


    This is getting quite far beyond my homebrew though. I suggest opening a different thread for fixes to other things. Then you can receive proper feedback.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Is the same not true for dual wielding daggers? How about dual wielding shurikens (darts)?

    In both cases you're basically restricted to Monk or Rogue if you want to play mostly optimally. D&D is a rigid game. While I strive to make it less rigid there are certain choices that are plainly suboptimal. My goal is to only buff them when it makes flavor sense.

    Though perhaps there is a fighting style out there that can make light weapons a viable option.
    Fair point on D&D being rigid, I suppose. Its weapon and non-magical combat systems also leave a lot to be desired. Still, more fighting styles can't hurt, if mechanical niches can be found for them.

    Different people want different things from roleplaying games. Some people want complex characters so casters exist for them while others want simple characters that are easier to manage so martials exist for them. Generally that's how D&D has always been. 3.X made some strives to adjust this later in its printing with Tome of Battle and 4e changed this drastically, but those two options (simple and complex) must always be present for players.

    I believe I have provided a fair amount of options (and complexity) to the fighter via maneuvers. While martials will never be able to cast spells and have all the versatility that those bring I believe the caster martial divide in 5e is the smaller it has ever been and my rules significantly shrink that divide by having casters recharge on a short rest instead of long. Every class has a role to play and I believe martials are a vital part of every group in 5e.

    Having said that if you have something specific in mind please do share.
    That is true, but consider this - the spectrum of simplicity to complexity pretty much runs along the non-magical/magical line. The simple options are non-magical, complexity is magical. Thus someone who wants to play a complex, tactically engaging character without magic, they're kind of up the creek without a paddle. Likewise with someone who wants to play a simple magician, though this is easier. Not sure if it's easier or harder in your houserules.

    You've done a lot of work on rewriting the magical and half-magical classes to be more consistent, and I believe non-magical ones could use the same treatment. The fighter is too broad and undefined, the barbarian is laser-focused on getting angry and hitting things. The rogue is kind of stuck being the only non-magical skill expert while also bearing the "thief" baggage all the way from original D&D. Reworking them into more consistent classes that cover different archetypes for non-magical specialists could help with that, while providing both simple and complex options.

    Of course, this would mean even more work for an already extensive project, so this is less a suggestion and more an opinion, really.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I believe non-magical ones could use the same treatment. The fighter is too broad and undefined, the barbarian is laser-focused on getting angry and hitting things. The rogue is kind of stuck being the only non-magical skill expert while also bearing the "thief" baggage all the way from original D&D. Reworking them into more consistent classes that cover different archetypes for non-magical specialists could help with that, while providing both simple and complex options.
    I'm overall pretty happy with the state of martials. A Barbarian especially is fantasticly effective.

    A martial rework sounds like a project that you have a strong opinion on. I'd be curious what you could come up with and would possibly even consider such a rework of martial characters.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    This is a feat tax for something that should work this way by RAW. If my rules don't explicitly allow it somewhere I allow characters to draw as many weapons as attacks for thrown weapons. It shouldn't require a feat to do so.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    For 2 light weapons this is already covered via Dual Wielder. Otherwise this line wouldn't work as TWF does not allow an offhand light weapon with a main hand one handed weapon. I wouldn't as I've written above.
    Was trying to suggest a "fix" for the Longsword/Dagger setup, with the addition of "or one-handed weapon and simple light weapon" added to the TWF general rule. The point of it was not to stack with DW feat, but still allow the Longsword/Dagger setup for TWF, but also benefit a dagger throwing character.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    This is getting quite far beyond my homebrew though. I suggest opening a different thread for fixes to other things. Then you can receive proper feedback.
    I was suggesting a rough idea for your homebrew. You don't see the Longsword/Dagger setup as an issue to fix, so I'll drop it.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    You don't see the Longsword/Dagger setup as an issue to fix
    Fixing it makes it strictly superior to two light weapon TWF is the issue.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    The fighter is too broad and undefined
    We played using his Fighter for the first time on the weekend. An F8, and B5/F3. The only issue was the archetypes didn't suit our characters, so had to homebrew a Scout and Skirmisher/Guerrilla. But as a system, I found it a lot more defined. The F8 Skirmisher had 4 Combat Maneuvers(1 per round limit), and his level 3 archetype feature. The CM's made for interesting tactical choices each round, and the archetype feature made his feel very different to the other archetypes. You would not have mistaken him for a Cavalier. He had Evasive Footwork, Lunging Strike, Riposte and Crippling Strike(he had Goading in normal 5e rules, but that is now locked to the tank types - Cavalier and Samurai). He was effectively drawing the attention off our cleric with Crippling Strike, and moving around the battlefield with Evasive Footwork etc. Each round it really mattered which he chose. The higher level you get, the larger your suite of CM's, and the more tactical it becomes. Also the archetypes continue to steer you away from the flavor of other fighter archetypes. Might not be as complex as some would like, but as our F8 hadn't even read the system before the game, it was easy enough to pick up, and more defined and flavorful that standard 5e Fighters. That's been my take so far.
    Only reason I see its not broad, is the limited amount and style of archetypes. But the system has room for that.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    January 9th, 2018
    Naturalist
    • Beastmaster removed in favor of the animal companion spell.

    Occultist
    • Summoner removed in favor of the summon eidolon spell.

    Psionicist
    • arcane constructís structure updated a bit (progression of ability scores, enhancements). Eidolon and Animal Companion align with the Arcane Construct.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    I'm overall pretty happy with the state of martials. A Barbarian especially is fantasticly effective.

    A martial rework sounds like a project that you have a strong opinion on. I'd be curious what you could come up with and would possibly even consider such a rework of martial characters.
    If you're curious... here's what I'd do, while keeping mostly to the paradigms it seems you've adopted:

    • Consider redoing the weapons list. Right now, it's mostly an illusion of choice. Actual variety mostly comes from combat style features. It needs to stop straddling the fence and either provide actual variety or boil it down to broad categories (light, one-handed, two-handed, finesse, reach). The latter is a much more realistic proposition, so I'd probably go with that. This is mostly a cosmetic issue, but it helps players describe their weapons however they want without having to worry about suboptimal weapon choices. Making two-handed finesse options would be problematic, as dexterity is already more useful than strength in many ways. Not sure about Versatile. Right now it's a bit of a decoration. It could benefit from its own weapon style and talents, perhaps. But a versatile finesse weapon would still give dexterity builds an option they didn't have before.
    • Classes. In your rework, rangers and paladins have been folded into more overtly magical classes, so what remains is fighter, rogue and barbarian. Barbarian is very focused on rage. Rogue is in a very precarious position because it's the "skill specialist" class while also having the thief baggage from all the way back to the original D&D and a focus on single-target damage. So it's technically a grab-bag for all "tricky" types, but also not. Fighter, meanwhile, is a generic option for all warriors who don't fall into the other two and don't use too much magic.

      What I'd do is rework them to suit archetypes and battlefield roles. Let fighter be the "defender" class, focused on standing in the front, being durable and disrupting. Barbarian can be replaced by an aggressive and mobile class that includes, but isn't limited to, the raging berserker. Then add a "warlord" type, which focuses on the strategic and battlefield-controlling aspects of the fighter archetype. Then the "trickster" class, which includes the thief/rogue, but also other skill specialists who need a bit of setup in combat. Whether it's sneak attack or something else.
    • Each of those would include at least one archetype that's simple and relies on a few strong abilities. Each archetype would also include its own spin on what the class is about, like the "barbarian" subclass' rage. The more complex ones would need a resource system for scaling maneuvers. I think superiority dice have potential here, as does a model where you get a passive benefit for unspent dice. Which could be a way to give simple options to those that want them.


    It's very ambitious, and I don't know if it'd be possible in practice... so take it for what you will. It's not so much about power as it is about variety and engagement.
    Last edited by Morty; 2018-01-10 at 10:43 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Light Off-Hand Fighting [Stance]
    When fighting with a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon in your off-hand, you gain a +1 to attack rolls with your off-hand weapon.

    Finesse Defence [Stance]
    When not wearing Bulky armor, and fighting with a finesse weapon and no weapon or shield in your other hand, or two finesse weapons, you gain +1 AC.

    Would these work in your system, or does it mess with balance somehow?

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Light Off-Hand Fighting [Stance]
    When fighting with a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon in your off-hand, you gain a +1 to attack rolls with your off-hand weapon.
    TWF does not allow attacking with a one handed weapon and an "off hand" weapon. You'd have to patch the TWF base rules. At that point, assuming my rules for twf, we'd compare 1d6+3+1d6+3 vs 1d8+3+1d4

    the 1d4 would have a higher chance to hit and the 1d8 does more damage on "Extra attack" and opportunity attacks. I'd have to calculate how much, but I'd wager that this option would be much better than 2x light weapons. For example a rogue would deal more damage as +1 to hit is quite important for sneak attack.

    I wouldn't use it for these reasons. If we were talking about 2x daggers or plain dagger then there may be room for calculations, but not with that much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Finesse Defence [Stance]
    When not wearing Bulky armor, and fighting with a finesse weapon and no weapon or shield in your other hand, or two finesse weapons, you gain +1 AC.
    This seems like an attempt to fix dueling, but as above dueling doesn't actually need fixing - it's quite good and gives a significantly higher boost in damage than other fighting styles. The issue is that dueling needs a talent/feat. That talent/feat should likely contain +1 AC like Dual Wielder does, but it'd need more.

    This stance would be mechanically worse than dueling. It's even worse than Defense.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    I wouldn't use it for these reasons. If we were talking about 2x daggers or plain dagger then there may be room for calculations, but not with that much.
    I forgot to add "you can use" into the stance. Wasn't attempting to change the general rule, just provide another stance for possible dual wielding setups. But I see your points, doesn't sound like it would work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    This seems like an attempt to fix dueling, but as above dueling doesn't actually need fixing - it's quite good and gives a significantly higher boost in damage than other fighting styles. The issue is that dueling needs a talent/feat. That talent/feat should likely contain +1 AC like Dual Wielder does, but it'd need more.

    This stance would be mechanically worse than dueling. It's even worse than Defense.
    Actually it was an attempt to pair with Dueling(both to switch, and at F9 to combine with), and provide a Musketeer type, who may not wear armor, to have a second stance to use that provides +1 AC. Defense stance only works with armor. Also, it provides a benefit to using two lighter weapons, that can stack with Defense(for non-bulky armor). So an advantage of using two shortswords, is you can use both this and Defense. Non-Bulky armors max out at 17, so bringing it up to 18 didn't seem to much, especially with the reduced damage of TWF with d6 weapons instead of d8. DW feat stacks too, so this wouldn't bring it above a Plate+Shield+Defense character.
    You could use TWF and Finesse Fighting to wield two rapiers, but then you can't have both those and Defense at level 9, so they'll never stack to give both two d8 weapons and more than +1 AC.

    Edit: And I agree, Dueling does need a feat, I wont' try address that in Stances. Trying to give broader support for other possible Fighter setups. For a Musketeer type with no armor, would still require an archetype with Unarmored Defense. But for a level 9 fighter, I think there needs to be more support for the various setups. Dex Fighter's don't seem to be supported yet, and I think they are a valid fighter type - like a Musketeer, who is a dex combatant, without actually being a rogue.
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2018-01-10 at 03:40 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Hey Kryx, out of curiosity have you considered changing up the 6 classic attributes?

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    After talking with my DM, he suggested the following changes, thought I'd see if you saw any flaws.

    Defense [Stance]
    You gain a +1 bonus to AC.
    Notes: This was for a possible Musketeer type unarmored dex fighter in the future. No reason a fighter in a defensive stance wouldn't be better off if unarmored.

    Two-Weapon Fighting [Stance]
    You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding arenít light. Any light melee weapon you hit with, does +1 damage, and any simple light weapon you hit with does +2 damage while two-weapon fighting. Additionally you can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
    Notes: Allows more versatile setups with TWF.

    Edit: But this is what you had issue before I now realize, with increasing smaller weapons damage. It is decreasing the damage die while increasing minimum damage, so its more a trade off.
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2018-01-11 at 08:50 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Hey Kryx, out of curiosity have you considered changing up the 6 classic attributes?
    I've considered it many times. I also heavily considered 5e Without Ability Scores-- skills, Skills, Skills. It was one sacred cow that I couldn't get my players to go for.

    I think it would likely improve the game if the GM had players on board with the idea.

    ___

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Defense [Stance]
    You gain a +1 bonus to AC.
    Notes: This was for a possible Musketeer type unarmored dex fighter in the future. No reason a fighter in a defensive stance wouldn't be better off if unarmored.
    Removing armor requirements will be a fine change. The reason the developers put it there was likely to prevent a monk or wild shape druid multiclassing to 1 fighter for +1 AC, but as long as those kind of cases don't occur it should be fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Edit: But this is what you had issue before I now realize, with increasing smaller weapons damage. It is decreasing the damage die while increasing minimum damage, so its more a trade off.
    A dagger now does 4.5 average damage which is the same as a longsword. That doesn't work for me. :S

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Removing armor requirements will be a fine change. The reason the developers put it there was likely to prevent a monk or wild shape druid multiclassing to 1 fighter for +1 AC, but as long as those kind of cases don't occur it should be fine.
    True, wasn't thinking multi-class for once Monks current max is AC20, same as Plate+Shield without stance. Would it break things if the Monk mc'd Fighter 1 to get that bonus?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    A dagger now does 4.5 average damage which is the same as a longsword. That doesn't work for me. :S
    I think my DM was more worried about having to choose two longswords over longsword and dagger to be optimal in TWF stance, and L+D would be a much more common setup. This way there is a trade off, but you can choose thematically instead of mechanically with no real penalty to damage. It's not like the dagger can't ever do that damage in the hands of someone else, like a Dueling stance or even a rogue, so its feasible. For a fighter, the longsword will still have a higher maximum each hit, and it will shine more with crits/OA's, so dual wielding daggers with TWF stance is not optimal. This version of TWF benefit is still getting that d8 weapon in your primary hand.
    I know you disagree though. We might have to houserule that one.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Would it break things if the Monk mc'd Fighter 1 to get that bonus?
    It's probably fine, but I'm just guessing that is why the developers did it as they did.

    Sounds like you found a solution for your group for TWF.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •